It is most reassuring to see that while displaying the most pragmatic approach, the Supreme Court in a most learned judgment titled Rinku Baheti vs Sandesh Sharda in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 278 of 2023 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024 INSC 1014 in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction that was pronounced as recently as on December 19, 2024 has minced just no words whatsoever to make it absolutely clear that ex-wives can't demand lifestyle matching husband's growth. We thus see that on the vexed issue of permanent alimony in cases of matrimonial disputes, the Apex Court noted the unjustified tendency of parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalization of wealth with the other party. The Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon'ble Ms Justice BV Nagarathna and Hon'ble Mr Justice Pankaj Mithal very rightly quipped that, "We wonder, would the wife be willing to seek an equalization of wealth with the husband if due to some unfortunate events post-separation, he has been rendered a pauper?"
It is thus entirely in the fitness of things that the Apex Court very rightly observed that, "The wife is entitled to be maintained as far as possible in a manner that is similar to what she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home while the parties were together. But once the parties were separated, it cannot be expected of the husband to maintain her as per his present status all his life." The top court also very rightly opined that if the husband has moved ahead and is fortunately doing better in the life post his separation, then to ask him to always maintain the status of the wife as per his own changing status would be putting a burden on his own personal progress. It underscored that there is no fixed formula for calculating maintenance amount; instead it should be based on a balanced consideration of various factors.
In a nutshell, it is thus rightly pointed out by the Apex Court that ex-wives can't demand lifestyle matching husband's growth. It was made absolutely clear by the top court that stringent legal provisions are meant for their welfare which should not be misused as tools to chastise, threaten, domineer or extort from their husbands. It is high time and necessary safeguards must be inserted in penal laws which have not been inserted even in revised penal laws to protect husband and his parents and relatives from undue mental and physical harassment and foisting of false criminal cases on them by the wife and her parents and relatives without them being held accountable in any manner which is most disgraceful indeed! No denying it!
At the very outset, this brilliant judgment authored by Hon'ble Ms Justice BV Nagarathna for a Bench of Apex Court comprising of herself and Hon'ble Mr Justice Pankaj Mithal sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, "This transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC"), seeking the following reliefs:
"a) Grant transfer of Divorce Petition case filed under section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing RCS(HM) No. 1379 of 2022 titled as Sandesh Sharda Versus Rinku Baheti pending in the Hon'ble Court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh to the Court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts, District Pune, Maharashtra; and
b) Pass such other order(s) or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of the justice.""
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 9.16 that, "In the present case, it is evident from the averments and submissions as well as our interactions with the parties that the petitioner's criminal complaint, among other things, has left an incurable scar on the relationship between the parties. The parties have had a brief period of relationship, which can be deciphered even without getting into the contrasting allegations of how many months they have exactly resided together. Soon after a year of marriage, the respondent-husband had filed the police complaint and the first petition for divorce, which means that the relationship between them had deteriorated by then. For almost two years since then, they have been embroiled in disputes before various courts. The parties have gone through multiple rounds of mediation and have not been able to arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement. The respondent-husband has appeared before this Court and has categorically stated that he does not wish to enter into any further discussions with the petitioner-wife. The petitioner has also pursued her application and contention regarding the fixation of permanent alimony and has vehemently argued that the respondent is a man of means and she should be given alimony commensurate to both the status of the respondent and the amount received by the ex-wife of the respondent, all of which has been termed as being an extortion by the respondent-husband. In the said scenario, we do not think that there is any chance for the parties to now reconcile their differences and lead a normal married life hereinafter. Forcing the parties to now move back to the Family Court and pursue their legal remedies, or to compel them to carry on in the present marital bond for the sake of formality, would amount to bestowing unwarranted hardship on the already sparring spouses. Both options, in our view, are unviable and cannot be ordered in the present case."
Most significantly, most sagaciously and most forthrightly, the Bench mandates in para 10 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, "The provisions in the criminal law are for the protection and empowerment of women but sometimes are used by certain women more for purposes that they are never meant for. In recent times, the invocation of Sections 498A, 376, 377, 506 of the IPC as a combined package in most of the complaints related to matrimonial disputes is a practice which has been condemned by this Court on several occasions. In certain cases, the wife and her family tend to use a criminal complaint with all the above serious offences as a platform for negotiation and as a mechanism and a tool to get the husband and his family to comply with their demands, which are mostly monetary in nature. Sometimes this is done in a fit of rage after a marital dispute, while at times it is a planned strategy in other cases. Unfortunately, it is not just the parties who are involved in this abuse of the process of law. They are understandably fuelled by the emotions of the situation. But other stakeholders also worsen the situation as they may often devise such crafty strategies for the women to adopt such arm-twisting tactics for their ulterior motives. Further, the police personnel are sometimes quick to jump into action in selective cases and arrest the husband or even their relatives including aged and bedridden parents and grand-parents of the husband. The trial courts are hesitant in granting bail to the accused persons being swayed by the "gravity of the offences" mentioned in the FIR. The collective effect of this chain of events is often overlooked by the actual individual players involved therein, which is that even minor disputes between husband and wife tend to snowball into ugly prodigious battles of ego and reputation and washing dirty linen in public, eventually leading to the relationship turning sour to the extent that there remains no possibility of a reconciliation or cohabitation. The women need to be careful about the fact that these strict provisions of law in their hands are beneficial legislations for their welfare and not means to chastise, threaten, domineer or extort from their husbands."
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 14.4 that, "In the instant case as well, the petitioner-wife has stated that the respondent-husband is a man of means with a net-worth of Rs.5,000 crores with multiple businesses and properties in USA and in India and that he had paid his first wife at least Rs.500 crores upon separation, excluding a house in Virginia, USA. Thus, she claims permanent alimony commensurate to the status of the respondent-husband and on the same principles as was paid to the first wife of the respondent. The respondent-husband on the other hand is willing to pay a reasonable amount to cover the difference in the income and expenditure of the petitioner-wife, which he feels should be in the range of Rs.20 to 40 lakhs as a one-time lump sum payment. Thus, there is a clear and significant divergence or "mismatch" between the offer and the desire."
Most remarkably, the Bench propounds in para 14.5 stating that, "We have serious reservations with the tendency of parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalisation of wealth with the other party. It is often seen that parties in their application for maintenance or alimony highlight the assets, status and income of their spouse, and then ask for an amount that can equal their wealth to that of the spouse. However, there is an inconsistency in this practice, because the demands of equalisation are made only in cases where the spouse is a person of means or is doing well for himself. But such demands are conspicuously absent in cases where the wealth of the spouse has decreased since the time of separation. There cannot be two different approaches to seeking and granting maintenance or alimony, depending on the status and income of the spouse. The law of maintenance is aimed at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice and dignity of the individual. The husband is under a legal obligation to sufficiently provide for his wife. As per settled law, the wife is entitled to be maintained as far as possible in a manner that is similar to what she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home while the parties were together. But once the parties have separated, it cannot be expected of the husband to maintain her as per his present status all his life. If the husband has moved ahead and is fortunately doing better in life post his separation, then to ask him to always maintain the status of the wife as per his own changing status would be putting a burden on his own personal progress. We wonder, would the wife be willing to seek an equalisation of wealth with the husband if due to some unfortunate events post-separation, he has been rendered a pauper?"
For clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 14.6 holding that, "However, the law permits that if there is a continuing obligation on the husband post-separation, he may seek a reduction in the maintenance amount. Equally, a divorced wife, in the context of receiving monthly maintenance from a former husband can seek enhancement of the same owing to inflation or other circumstances which have adversely affected her status and position such as serious illness or loss of income from a particular source, etc."
It would be instructive to note that the Bench notes in para 14.7 that, "But the petitioner-wife in the instant case has sought equalisation of status not just with the respondent-husband but also with the ex-wife of the respondent. In our opinion, this cannot be an acceptable approach. The fixation of alimony depends on various factors and there cannot be any straight-jacket formula for the same. Thus, the petitioner cannot simply claim an amount equal to what the ex-wife of the respondent had received or on the basis of the income of the respondent. The Court has to not just consider the income of the respondent-husband here, but also bear in mind other factors such as the income of the petitioner-wife, her reasonable needs, her residential rights, and other similar factors. Thus, her entitlement to maintenance has to be decided based on the factors applicable to her and not depend on what the respondent had paid to his ex-wife or solely on his income."
It would be worthwhile to note that the Bench notes in para 14.8 that, "This Court in Rajnesh, has observed that the duration of the marriage would also be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while assessing the permanent alimony to be paid to the wife. In the instant case, the parties were married on 31.07.2021. They hardly resided together for about three to four months. The respondent-husband left for USA in the month of November, 2021 and thereafter returned in January, 2021. Between January, 2021 and March, 2021, the parties are said to have stayed together for short intervals at Pune, Kota, Bhopal and Jaipur, and thereafter, the respondent again returned to USA on 08.03.2022. The respondent then came back from USA on 12.06.2022. The differences between the spouses emerged in the month of June-July, 2022, when the respondent is said to have suggested separation and the petitioner refused the same, leading to a criminal complaint also being filed by the respondent against the petitioner in July, 2022. In fact, on 13.08.2022, a petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed by the parties before the Family Court, Bhopal. The said divorce petition was dismissed owing to there being no separation between the parties for one complete year."
Briefly stated, it is disclosed in para 14.9 that, "Thus, the lump sum amount towards permanent alimony determined by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Pune is Rs.10 crores."
Quite significantly, the Bench holds and directs in para 14.10 that, "We find that since the petitioner has let her flat and is receiving monthly rental income from the flat to the tune of Rs.27,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Seven Thousand only) and she also has interest income from fixed deposits, she is not economically impoverished as such. In the petition filed by the parties jointly seeking dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, respondent herein had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8 crores towards full and final settlement of all claims of the petitioner. The Family Court at Pune has assessed Rs.10 crores as the quantum of permanent alimony that petitioner could be entitled to. We accept the said finding of the Family Court, Pune. An additional amount of Rs.2 crores is liable to be paid to the petitioner so as to enable her to acquire another flat, in case she is interested in doing so, as we are directing the petitioner to vacate her father-in-law's flats which she is presently occupying in Pune as well as in Bhopal, if not already vacated. Thus, a total sum of Rs.12 crores is liable to be paid as permanent alimony to the petitioner by the respondent as a full and final settlement of all her claims on the respondent and his family. Further, the respondent and his family shall also not demand the return of any amounts that he or his family may have paid to the petitioner or any jewellery or other valuables that he or his family may have gifted to the petitioner."
Conclusion
Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 15 that, "In the result, we hold as under:
a. The application filed by the respondent-husband under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
b. Consequently, the criminal cases and the consequential proceedings pending against respondent-husband, arising out of FIR No. 588 of 2022 dated 15.12.2022 before the Police Station Yerwada, District Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 354, 376, 377, 420, 498A, 503, 506, 509 of the IPC and Sections 66 and 67 of the IT Act, 2000, filed by the petitioner herein, are hereby quashed.
c. Further, the criminal case and the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 586 of 2022 dated 12.12.2022 filed by the petitioner herein against Mr. Paresh Somani before the Police Station Yerwada, District Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 360, 427, 452, 454, and 457 of the IPC, shall also stand quashed.
d. The respondent shall pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.12,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crores only) which shall be paid within a period of one month from today. An undertaking to that effect shall be filed before this Court within two weeks from today.
e. Litigation charges for the petitioner is quantified at Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) which shall be paid along with the payment of permanent alimony.
f. The petitioner shall vacate from the premises belonging to respondent's father at Pune and Bhopal, within two months from the date of receipt of the amount of permanent alimony from the respondent, as detailed hereunder:
(i) Flat No.C-1, Ivy Glen Marigold Complex, Kalyani Nagar, Pune (Maharashtra); and
(ii) E-7/53, Arera SBI Colony, Bhopal (M.P.), if not already vacated.
An undertaking shall be filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid effect within a period of two weeks from today.
g. In view of the above, the Transfer Petition stands disposed, along with pending application(s), if any."
